Why isn't Track Popular in America?

This thread comes up often. I once stated that I thought having an American Only league would help track's popularity.

My thinking is that American's aren't very open to international competition, and since we are admitting we have a problem with track it would be best to crawl before we walk.

We start with building a strong following of US only athlete's league, then worry about competing vs the world.

Left Said Fred wrote:

What stiff competition did Usain face in his Rio 150m?

Rugby is a team sport. Track isn't. That's my point. Team sports will always trump individual sports for popularity. It's us versus them.

A crowd of 3000 people for the greatest star in the world in T&F? Hardly seems a big deal to me; and that was at the beach, filled with tourists.

The point about team sports was that it is very possible to have popular domestic competition and popular competition at the higher (national, international levels - the representative teams) levels.

I have always thought a track and field league would work and in fact, I would plan my summer vacations around attending 1-2 league meets every year for the rest of my life if a track league ever took off!

There are several pieces to creating a league already in place.

a. You have hundreds of USATF registered clubs, several of which we all know. (Think Hansons, OTC, etc.) Clubs should have unlimited fundraising options. This would include no restrictions on logos for uni's, bags, t-shirts, etc.

b. Several of these clubs are already associated with shoe companies, which is great. Some clubs receive funding from membership dues or other sources, which is great also. USATF provides stipends to some clubs, I believe.

- this does mean some clubs would have mo money, mo power. OTC would simply be like the Yankees. Nothing wrong with that.

c. 5 meets over the summer. Alternate every other weekend. Obviously your Olympic-caliber athletes may miss meets due to racing in Europe, etc. Not a big deal, this is where team depth comes in.

d. RELAYS. 4x100-4x400-4x800. These are a "must". Just like the NFL has guys who are only special-teamers, clubs would make SURE they are getting solid 1:48-1:50 guys out of college to be able to score in relays. Your very best will obviously run for points in the open races.

e. 2 hour meet. No need for more than 2 heats of any event. If you do 5 meets, no need for a Steeple, 5k or 10k at every meet. You could do 2 Steeples, 2 5k's and 1 10k each season.

f. Local/Regional pride/fan-base. Greater Boston Track Club signs a guy out of Kansas Wesleyan University...you can get GBTC has 1,000 new fans. Multiply this times 100 for each guy/gal that "Goes Pro" out of college.

Multiply this by 10,000 for Average Joe who sees this on the college athletic website.

Pretty soon, everyone knows of a guy who knows a guy who runs professional track. CONNECTION TO FANS IS WHAT WILL MAKE IT WORK.

Right now, there is almost no connection at all from elite track to even everyday track fans. None. You see Prefontaine Classic, probably USA Champs, maybe world champs and Olympics. Honestly, most people will only watch an elite 5-6 times in their whole career. I have probably only seen Nick Symmonds' race 4 times, once live. And this is the guy who probably does the BEST job at marketing himself.

g. I would except USATF should have this going already, which obviously, they don't. USATF would ideally find sponsors enough to offer meaningful prize money for Teams as well as individuals.

Teams (combine Men/Women points- this would be great.)

1. 20,000

2. 10,000

3. 7,500

4. 5,000

5. 2,500

6. 1,000

Individual Events

1. 5,000

2. 4,000

3. 3,000

4. 2,000

5. 1,000

6. 500

7. 250

8. 100

That's not crazy money, even with 5 meets, but WAY BETTER than anything right now. Way better.

h. TV contracts. Do whatever it takes to make the series sell.

i. MAKE EACH MEET AN EVENT. Think outside the box. Have to have a Hayward Field set-up where fans don't have to move and can see everything.

Have things for kids to do.

Sell beer, bet on events.

USATF would have to take the lead. They are already established and have some resources and connections already in place.

THEY JUST NEED TO TAKE THE LEAD!!!!!!!!!! We're not paying $30 a year for a window decal and a crappy magazine...

Well I Dunno wrote:

Maybe. I dunno.

How can anything be simpler than 'first man across the line wins?' Or 'person who throws this thing furthest wins'. Etc. It seems to me that T&F events are the simplest of all possible sports.

Now someone could say that this does not take into account tactics, in a 1500m race for instance. And that is true. But then tennis (to pick one of your examples) also has tactics, strategies and counter-strategies that are lost on the uninitiated.

Here's what's simpler:

Who won game one? San Antonio.

Who won The Masters? Adam Scott.

Versus

Who won the Golden Gala?

You've got too many people doing different things such that you need halfway decent knowledge base to understand what's going on and be interested in it.

wfunny wrote:

The point about team sports was that it is very possible to have popular domestic competition and popular competition at the higher (national, international levels - the representative teams) levels.

Yes, but again, rugby's a team sport. Track is not.

mo money, mo problems wrote:

I have always thought a track and field league would work and in fact, I would plan my summer vacations around attending 1-2 league meets every year for the rest of my life if a track league ever took off!

a. so if you manage to get Samsung to become a title sponsor of your league, it will be okay for my team to have giant LG logos on their uniforms? You have to think about what rights you're selling.

b. who in the OTC would participate if elites are still going to Europe in the summer?

c. where are the meets hosted? who is paying for flights, hotels, meals? who is paying to rent the facility? How is a team element established if only each of five venues hosts a single event in the whole year? Can you imagine a football team that plays a single home game in the season?

d. how do you make these people run relays? What leverage do you have over them if they're only competing for prize money?

e. I think 3 hours tops.

f. What is GBTC paying this new club member and where does this money come from? Is this a draft or total free agency? Why would anyone (good or mediocre) submit themselves to this instead of working out a schedule that works better for his or her own needs? Who is coaching who? Why am I suddenly leaving my university coach under whom I had much success for a guy at GBTC whom I've never met?

g. Where is this money coming from? Why would I want to lock myself into this league where there is no guaranteed money (salary) and the prize money is less than half of what it is at a Diamond League?

h. Explain this one to me. You've already said your meets will be inferior to the Diamond League meetings presently in the United States, and those need to spend money to have them on television. If the Prefontaine Classic isn't getting paid to be on tv, why will yours?

i. You mean by having the hammer throw inside the stadium? I'm not sure I'm reading this one correctly.

Beer is for sale at lots of meets. Sports betting is only available in Las Vegas in the US, correct?

I thought you were paying $30 per year for insurance.

[quote]mo money, mo problems wrote:

h. TV contracts. Do whatever it takes to make the series sell.

quote]

You have made an extensive list of ways to solve the problem but just glossed over the most important problem.

I believe Athletics IS popular, or rather would be, if the sport was promoted in the right way. Speaking from a UK point of view I generally find that people are interested in watching the action (I'm talking diamond leagues/big meets) but more often then not they are shown on some obscure channel and there's no build up before and no reporting/reviewing after. This is not just confined to TV but also in papers, sports channels, sports websites etc. This means that people will watch and enjoy the athletics in passing but then never think about it again. If the meets were shown every week with promoting before and after then the casual watcher will start to recognise certain athletes and follow them a bit more.

If something like Badminton (which I don't follow or see much on TV) was shown week in week out on TV and given plenty of exposure across different media then I'm certain the following of that sport would shoot up.

Everyone in this country knows and Loves Mo and he's one of the biggest stars in Athletics at the moment but there was hardly any mention of him racing in Eugene the other week and I had to search for coverage (on the BBC red button)as there was no advertising of it. Had they shown his race on the main BBC channel (of which there was nothing worth watching on at the time) then people WOULD have been interested in it.

Of course all this is easier said then done and its a vicious circle where the sports not going to get much coverage without the fan base and the fan base is not going to increase enough to warrant more coverage. But I do believe in general there is nothing wrong with the set up of the sport just the way it is promoted. I don't know if this is a similar problem to what its like in America but someone needs to sort it out!

Now that's a Good analysis!!!

I think about running Everyday, and yet I strain to pay attention and not to want to go home at many track meets (HS usually), it's an individual sport and not about teams really.

I can watch a 10000m race and enjoy it because I know running...but most folks can not. It has to be packaged to sell.

Left Said Fred wrote:

What stiff competition did Usain face in his Rio 150m?

Rugby is a team sport. Track isn't. That's my point. Team sports will always trump individual sports for popularity. It's us versus them.

"London: Tickets for 2-Day IAAF Diamond League Meet Sold Out in 75 Minutes"

Why are American track fans worried about the sport's popularity.

Why can't you guys just enjoy the sport without worrying about what others think?

Not a Coach wrote:

Left Said Fred wrote:

What stiff competition did Usain face in his Rio 150m?

Rugby is a team sport. Track isn't. That's my point. Team sports will always trump individual sports for popularity. It's us versus them.

"London: Tickets for 2-Day IAAF Diamond League Meet Sold Out in 75 Minutes"

http://www.diamondleague.com/News/NewsArticles/London-Tickets-for-2-Day-IAAF-Diamond-League-Meet-Sold-Out-in-75-Minutes/

We're speaking about the popularity of the sport in America.

unrequited love wrote:

Why are American track fans worried about the sport's popularity.

Why can't you guys just enjoy the sport without worrying about what others think?

Because if the sport was more popular there'd be more money and we'd get to see better races all year long. I wanna see Olympic quality heats multiple times a year not just once every four. This would create better rivalries. Imagine if Gatlin and Bolt were to race 3 more times this year in the 100 instead of once more in the World Championship final. Plenty of people would tune in just to see would come to see rivalry sort of like boxing.

Estr wrote:

Everyone says track isn't popular because its dominated by blacks. Well that sure killed the NBA didn't it?

Everyone says track isn't popular because there are no teams and there is too much individuality. That sure killed the PGA didn't it?

The reason track died is because of the personalities or rather the lack of personalities in track. That's all it is.

The big difference between track and the PGA is that in a PGA event there is a single, identifiable, winner. That's all. There is no "straightest shot with a wood club" winner, a "longest shot with an iron" winner, a "best putter" winner, and so on. Track, on the other hand, offers so many winners at an event that essentially it offers none.

Most of the "personalities" that you find in sports like golf and tennis become personalities by winning or nearly winning major events. That was beginning to happen with road racing in the 70s and 80s. Rodgers and Shorter were definitely "personalities" in the sports world then though not to the extent that guys like John McEnroe or Jack Nicklaus were.

You also need to consider the length of time a golfer or tennis player spends in the public eye while competing. Golf tournaments last for 3 days or so. A tennis match at a major tournament easily can last for 3 hours and generally both finals and semi-finals are televised in their entirety. The viewing public sees that athlete and hears his name many, many times and then usually hears it again a few weeks later at the next major tournament. The only comparable exposure our sport provides is the marathon where an athlete's name is heard publicly for about two hours and then it may be another year or even more until that athlete runs another marathon and has that level of exposure

When someone like Bolt comes along and wins enough events that the public recognizes his name through sheer repetition, as happens with golf and tennis players, he does become a "personality." But few track athletes are able to win their events often enough or compete in events that are lengthy or frequent to become the sort of household name that Bolt has become.

[quote]ShouldBeStudying wrote:

[quote]unrequited love wrote:

To be frank, no-one cares about sprinters and East African mercenaries who burn themselves out in 3 years.

unrequited love wrote:

Why are American track fans worried about the sport's popularity.

Why can't you guys just enjoy the sport without worrying about what others think?

You want to know the real reason? The "track fans" that purportedly feel this way are themselves runners who desperately, desperately want other people to be impressed with their ability to "run fast." But given that pretty much nobody gives a rat's *ss, they are frustrated in this respect.

In turn, in the minds of these sad, self-absorbed people, this gets transmogrified into the idea that, if track were somehow "more popular" amongst a more enlightened populace, then their "talent" would receive its due respect.

Every other putative answer you may receive to your question is wrong. The foregoing is the only and only true and correct answer.

I will tell you why track is so lame in this country. Same athletes year in and year out, same collegiate teams year in and year out. Selfish coaches who really don't care about selling the sport.

Americans root for the underdog and there are none in track and field.

Lets see how many years Kansas wins nationals.

i could be famous wrote:

Betting and beer will make things better.

Yeah, but you could say that about anything.

Well, to their credit, Americans are not going to take seriously a sport with a huge drug reputation.

It is very popular on the high school level for two reasons, 1st.... no drug use at this level. Pure track and

field.

2nd.... big meets that let the high schoolers and college folks run are extremely popular. Example: Penn Relays.

Wild Cat wrote:

Well, to their credit, Americans are not going to take seriously a sport with a huge drug reputation.

It is very popular on the high school level for two reasons, 1st.... no drug use at this level. Pure track and

field.

2nd.... big meets that let the high schoolers and college folks run are extremely popular. Example: Penn Relays.

Then explain why Baseball and NFL are so popular? Right now, the king of the drug reputation is MLB and there are blatant signs (much more obvious than cycling) that the NFL players are on roids